Why so sensitive?

[Deidre32]

My poor sarcastic whit is all for naught as well. Not that that has anything to do with what I was talking about, I just felt like lamenting a bit.

Your avatar makes up for everything 'wrong' you could ever possibly post online. It always makes me smile.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

variant

Kant was a bit prudish, but I've sincerely never seen anyone make the distinction of themselves into one of those camps.

Well, as far a Christians go, that may be because nary a Christian has a degree in philosophy.

I prefer Hegel myself which is neither, nor. (and I am not any sort of Christian).

Hegel is interesting, although some of what he wrote is 'hellacious' to read (i.e. very convoluted). I like his theory on thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis. And I do lean more toward a combination of existentialism / coherentism. Actually, all the philosphers have something to contribute that we can take and deeply reflect upon.

 

[Received]

Kant was a bit prudish, but I've sincerely never seen anyone make the distinction of themselves into one of those camps.

I prefer Hegel myself which is neither, nor. (and I am not any sort of Christian).

I didn't know you were a code breaker.

 

[Received]

I'm more of a Kantian, Kierkegaardian Christian. I wonder what that makes me exactly?

Kind of contradictory. Kant believed the limit was the ethical, and Kierkegaard believed the ethical can and should (our very selfhood is dependent on it) transcend the ethical. Also, when it comes to the ethical sphere, I don't think Kierkegaard was a deontologist. He was down with Hegel's concept of the ethical as the "universal", or that law which applies to everyone at every moment (whatever that is). Is that deontology?

 

[Paradoxum]

Paradoxum

I mean that you've 'defined' liberty in specifics that by no means necessarily adhere to the concept, nor are these issues you've mentioned as a part of liberty out of controversial range by any stretch of the imagination; but whose definition are you referencing and from whence did it come?

I'm not sure you need a historical person's definition of liberty. Liberty generally means something along the lines of 'people being free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't violate others'. More than that probably needs to be said though. I'd say it's quite clear that the things I mentioned are required for liberty.

In essence, Kierkegaard would go beyond the simple use of the 'rational' and, when deliberating on a issue, advise that it is additionally important to add one's emotional experience to the deliberative process; attempt if possible to be in the shoes of the person who is suffering--then make a decision. As you can see, this is a bit different than Kant.

Yeah, that's quite different.

Right...just like it usually doesn't in science. However, if there is no conclusive moral thought, then we can't really say we've reached any kind of 'absolute truth' about the matter either. In fact, it might be that with additional information or calculation, we will eventually find that our initial ideas were wrong, and this is without even taking into account any kind of Christian consideration about some moral issue.

We can always be wrong, like with most things.

I was once a theist, and an atheist didn't get me to change my mind. I had to discover truth, and what that meant to me, on my own. We can plant seeds, but I'm not interested in bringing anyone to another point of view, without their consent.

I agree actually.

 

[variant]

variant

Well, as far a Christians go, that may be because nary a Christian has a degree in philosophy.

I know some, but then again I did pay for that philosophy minor in college.

Hegel is interesting, although some of what he wrote is 'hellacious' to read (i.e. very convoluted). I like his theory on thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis. And I do lean more toward a combination of existentialism / coherentism. Actually, all the philosphers have something to contribute that we can take and deeply reflect upon.

I don't find it so convoluted as some people seem to, but that might just be me being more comfortable in the abstract.

I'm more of a materialist/empiricist as opposed to Hegel but I like the way he always liked to try to resolve conflicts and integrate seemingly opposing ideas.

 

[variant]

Your avatar makes up for everything 'wrong' you could ever possibly post online. It always makes me smile.

Thanks.

The point of smiling kittens is to make us smile too I think.

 

[olderguy]

It seems there's a lot of atheists on this board considering it's supposed to be a Christian forum. I actually find atheists get more hot under the collar when they can't get Christians to agree with them, than Christians do when atheists won't agree with them.

 

[bhsmte]

It seems there's a lot of atheists on this board considering it's supposed to be a Christian forum. I actually find atheists get more hot under the collar when they can't get Christians to agree with them, than Christians do when atheists won't agree with them.

I think the theme is that each side gets frustrated in different ways. Some atheists get frustrated when they see a Christian ignore evidence with boatloads of support (many atheists just don't get this) and some Christians get frustrated and then judge the atheist in a negative manner, because they don't have the same faith as them.

It is really a mixed bag, with some on both sides, being over the top. I will also add, we also see Christians getting frustrated with other Christians on this board, because they don't interpret scriptures in the same way and some aggressive attacks will happen in regards to that.

 

[Cute Tink]

Transgender rights => So long as I don't pay for the operation, go ahead; And no, I won't be paying for extra bathrooms either

I'm curious. What "extra" bathrooms is any trans person asking to be provided? I know of some folks who want to single out trans people to use a "trans only" styled bathroom, but they are the only ones I know of suggesting such things.

And the operation may be individually expensive, but given the scarce number of people who actually want it and the fact that it is basically a one-shot deal, spread out over an insurance plan it would hardly be noticeable. In some cases, it may be less expensive than the birth of a child and those are far more frequent.

Just sayin'